Thursday, November 16, 2006

Hmmm...

-This is a plan for winning the war in Iraq. I don't think I like all of it... especially the part about a deadline. What is to stop the terrorists from simply waiting for the deadline... then we leave... then they come back?

3 Comments:

Point 3: Talk to the UN. Complete. Utter. Waste. Of. Time. Even the domestic political scene is probably too polarized for this to be meaningful.Point 4: send in the striped pants and money set. Good idea, doesn't really go far enough. State (CIA, too) needs to get pillaged, burned, and re-staffed by people who believe in America first. Unfortunately, that's a job for the next administration. :-(Point 5: the PR op. Fabulous idea. Let's tell the bad guys we'll be gone in a year. *There's* a good way to win a counterinsurgency ...

Hmm ... Blogger seems to have swallowed the first half of my post, so try again ...

Point 1: One year surge, if and only if Iraqis match it, else immediate withdrawal. Problem: can the Iraqis deliver? Al-Sadr is an important part of the governing coalition, and he won't like this at all. He has a lot to gain by fouling this effort up any way he can, and a lot to lose if it goes through.Point 2: The one year surge, and more advisors for the ISF. The advisors are a good idea, but the surge won't achieve any meaningful long-term results, because it ignores the real problem: Iran. Winning in Iraq will *require* doing something about Iran, and that means more than just bombing a few nuclear research facilities.